Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discussion

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

Ronalds theory is intersting but, too extreme.

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

Not really. I've heard it before many times and I've refuted it many times. Blackout/extinction kritiks are stupid. Waste of time and energy to debate it, since there is absolutely zero chance that it will be implemented ever, and of course the vast flaws in its reasoning/justification.

Personally I find it to be an utterly despicable, irredeemably evil, and patently insane goal. I'm surprised any of you even remotely consider it to be a good idea. From our own personal experiences I'm quite certain we can testify that life is absolutely worth living, and that to end it is completely undesirable.

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

I don't find it to be a good idea (I you were thinking I do), I find it to be an idiotic idea, and spiteful, but I do find it interesting as to why someone would think that mass genocide to end suffering is good, but I despise the idea. Though it does make me a little curious.

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

It's, interesting. Insane, yes, but interesting.

Like I said a bit back, I've met Holocaust survivors. They aren't depressed at all. They've went through more suffering and misery than the rest of us. One of them lost her entire Family of twelve in Auschwitz, but she isn't calling for a mass extinction of humanity.

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

Kal- I haven't been following this thread and don't really understand what you guys are debating. Explanation please?

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

Essentially, RonaldRaygun purposed the extinction of all life to end all suffering.

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

The extinction of everything to end all suffering? It's like euthanasia, but on a global scale - which is something I completely disagree.

Another thing about this though, suffering is mainly created by humanity right? Therefore not everyone on this planet has to be suffering because they revel in causing the suffering of everybody else? Therefore, how can you moralise that killing everyone on the planet to end all suffering if not everyone is suffering? Surely it is more logical to end the lives of those that cause it, and seeing as logic is what this theory is based around...

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

Nope.

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

Why not? If you didn't have Hitler, a Homo Sapien, then you would have 6 million Jews that wouldn't have suffered.

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

Why not? If you didn't have Hitler, a Homo Sapien, then you would have 6 million Jews that wouldn't have suffered.[/quote:465h4or6]It's pretty obvious that nature is the cause of far more suffering.

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

I assume you mean death of natural causes, aside from old age, these can all be prevented by man. Let me take malaria as an example. Where is malaria the biggest problem? Along certain latitudes, however in some places along these latitudes, such as Malaysia, it has been practically irradicated. So I propose unto you a question, why hasn't it been iradicated elsewhere? Due to the incompetence of our species, that is why.

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

So because humanity can’t prevent everything nature causes, some how that means humanity caused it?

Suffering caused by nature:
Every natural disaster that has occurred on Earth while sentient life was present, every kind of mental and physical disease that has plagued every sentient species that has ever existed, the inevitability of old age and death, the process of natural selection, the need for animals to kill in order to survive... Just to name the first examples that come to mind.

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

Has anybody else noticed that Ronald now belong to the group, "Ronald's Fantasyland of Doom"?

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

Since yesterday, actually. I want my own Fanatasyland of Classic Rock!

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

The idea that no life=no suffering is getting pretty technical. From a philosophical standpoint it is a paradox because technically there would be not suffering, but there would be no one to define suffering and therefore define the lack of suffering.

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

What? Why would suffering need to be defined?

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

Because the concept of suffering would not exist, so suffering wouldn't end, it wouldn't exist.

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

Right. Suffering wouldn't exist.

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

I think that stuff like this isn't meant to be looked at from a Philosophical Standpoint. Sometimes you have to make moral choices from what you know, and not what you think.

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

It's a chain of thought based purely on mathematical logic that doesn't factor in human emotion. It's computer logic.

The problem with this "mental exercise" is that you're specifically designing a situation that benefits the answer you want. A more balanced scenario would be that if the button is pushed, the planet explodes, making everyone else BRIEFLY suffer horribly, before dieing. You're also leaving out key details. Is this lone person that is suffering aware that he's the reason for their utopia? Did he volunteer for his position? Are the inhabitants aware of this being?

The fucking planet is named "Orgy!" Are they not doing what their natural desires, based off the name of the fucking planet, demand them to do? Their society is a Utopia, so there is nothing left to accomplish, so they can do whatever the fuck they want.

This line of thought is also flawed because it only accounts for people's own misery and pleasure. A lot of people don't even base their lives on misery or pleasure. There are people who base their lives on accomplishment: curing diseases, inventing new technology, etc. If a person lived a miserable life trying to invent some wonderful devise and was able to invent it at the very end of his life, then died happy, would you say his life wasn't worth living? That person's life wasn't based on misery or pleasure, it was based on accomplishment.

The act of raising a child isn't an act of pleasure. A lot of parents admit that raising a child is very hard and can get pretty miserable at times. If life is based on misery and pleasure, then why do people even bother to give birth to and raise children? The mere act of giving birth is one of if not the most painful thing a woman can go through in her life.